IRANIAN AIM-54A PHOENIX MISSILE

[Amir]

In the early days of December 1980 a single F-14 took off from Khatami
Air Base in Esfehan. The pilot was patrolling and scanning the sky over
the Persian Gulf about 60 to 70 miles west of Bushehr at an altitude of
about 3 to 4 thousand ft. ,when ground radar advised the F-14 pilot of
multiple boogies closing fast toward him. His aircraft was too far out
to send in any back up help, so ground radar told the pilot you are on
your own and good luck.
The pilot turned around towards them knowing he had a disadvantage in
numbers. By now the F-14 and two boogies were head to head about 20
miles apart. The crew got a Phoenix Missile lock at about 10 miles,
although it was a close range for phoenix. The pilot went ahead with
fox1, he fired an AIM-54 phoenix. Following the smoke path of the
phoenix he saw a ball of fire from the wing of MiG-21 that was
breaking-up. Moments later a splash down from pieces of MiG-21 were
visible in the ocean. In the mean while F-14 pilot observed the second
MiG-21doing a hard G-turn away from the fire ball since the 2 MiGs were
flying too close together. He was going back toward Iraq. The F-14 in
pursuit could not get any radar lock on the second MiG-21 before he
went super sonic.


Submitted by IRANIAN F-14 Pilot

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Wonder what the readiness of those Iranian F-14s and Phoenix missiles are
today?

end

"Amir" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> In the early days of December 1980 a single F-14 took off from Khatami
> Air Base in Esfehan. The pilot was patrolling and scanning the sky over
> the Persian Gulf about 60 to 70 miles west of Bushehr at an altitude of
> about 3 to 4 thousand ft. ,when ground radar advised the F-14 pilot of
> multiple boogies closing fast toward him. His aircraft was too far out
> to send in any back up help, so ground radar told the pilot you are on
> your own and good luck.
> The pilot turned around towards them knowing he had a disadvantage in
> numbers. By now the F-14 and two boogies were head to head about 20
> miles apart. The crew got a Phoenix Missile lock at about 10 miles,
> although it was a close range for phoenix. The pilot went ahead with
> fox1, he fired an AIM-54 phoenix. Following the smoke path of the
> phoenix he saw a ball of fire from the wing of MiG-21 that was
> breaking-up. Moments later a splash down from pieces of MiG-21 were
> visible in the ocean. In the mean while F-14 pilot observed the second
> MiG-21doing a hard G-turn away from the fire ball since the 2 MiGs were
> flying too close together. He was going back toward Iraq. The F-14 in
> pursuit could not get any radar lock on the second MiG-21 before he
> went super sonic.
>
>
> Submitted by IRANIAN F-14 Pilot
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On 25 Jul 2005 01:31:05 -0700, "Amir" > wrote:

>In the early days of December 1980 a single F-14 took off from Khatami
>Air Base in Esfehan. The pilot was patrolling and scanning the sky over
>the Persian Gulf about 60 to 70 miles west of Bushehr at an altitude of
>about 3 to 4 thousand ft. ,when ground radar advised the F-14 pilot of
>multiple boogies closing fast toward him. His aircraft was too far out
>to send in any back up help, so ground radar told the pilot you are on
>your own and good luck.
>The pilot turned around towards them knowing he had a disadvantage in
>numbers. By now the F-14 and two boogies were head to head about 20
>miles apart. The crew got a Phoenix Missile lock at about 10 miles,
>although it was a close range for phoenix. The pilot went ahead with
>fox1, he fired an AIM-54 phoenix. Following the smoke path of the
>phoenix he saw a ball of fire from the wing of MiG-21 that was
>breaking-up. Moments later a splash down from pieces of MiG-21 were
>visible in the ocean. In the mean while F-14 pilot observed the second
>MiG-21doing a hard G-turn away from the fire ball since the 2 MiGs were
>flying too close together. He was going back toward Iraq. The F-14 in
>pursuit could not get any radar lock on the second MiG-21 before he
>went super sonic.
>
>
>Submitted by IRANIAN F-14 Pilot

Maybe some Tom-drivers in this forum will comment, but I've got to
think that in a head-to-head pass with a system lock at ten miles
there is no possible way that the AIM-54 could function.

It's well inside Vmin for a AIM-7E-2 and wouldn't be a viable shot for
an AIM-9J, P, or M.

And, inside ten miles, even a MiG-21 can be easily acquired visually.

Sorry, I've gotta throw a bull-**** flag on this story.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[John Carrier]

>>In the early days of December 1980 a single F-14 took off from Khatami
>>Air Base in Esfehan. The pilot was patrolling and scanning the sky over
>>the Persian Gulf about 60 to 70 miles west of Bushehr at an altitude of
>>about 3 to 4 thousand ft. ,when ground radar advised the F-14 pilot of
>>multiple boogies closing fast toward him. His aircraft was too far out
>>to send in any back up help, so ground radar told the pilot you are on
>>your own and good luck.
>>The pilot turned around towards them knowing he had a disadvantage in
>>numbers. By now the F-14 and two boogies were head to head about 20
>>miles apart. The crew got a Phoenix Missile lock at about 10 miles,
>>although it was a close range for phoenix. The pilot went ahead with
>>fox1, he fired an AIM-54 phoenix. Following the smoke path of the
>>phoenix he saw a ball of fire from the wing of MiG-21 that was
>>breaking-up. Moments later a splash down from pieces of MiG-21 were
>>visible in the ocean. In the mean while F-14 pilot observed the second
>>MiG-21doing a hard G-turn away from the fire ball since the 2 MiGs were
>>flying too close together. He was going back toward Iraq. The F-14 in
>>pursuit could not get any radar lock on the second MiG-21 before he
>>went super sonic.
>>

Given a 180 turn at 10NM while the Turkey is closing, I think the Mig could
easily have been run down. And there's no problem with locking a target in
the rear hemisphere, supersonic or not.

>>Submitted by IRANIAN F-14 Pilot
>
> Maybe some Tom-drivers in this forum will comment, but I've got to
> think that in a head-to-head pass with a system lock at ten miles
> there is no possible way that the AIM-54 could function.


> It's well inside Vmin for a AIM-7E-2 and wouldn't be a viable shot for
> an AIM-9J, P, or M.

I think your memory is cloudy. 10NM is nicely within the AIM-7 envelope.
It's also in the heart of the AIM-54 ACM Active mode envelope IIRC.

> And, inside ten miles, even a MiG-21 can be easily acquired visually.

Head-on @ ten miles? Not with these eyes when they were 20/15 and on a good
day. Of course, the T-38 (and to a very slightly lesser degree, the F-5)
were more difficult still.

>> Sorry, I've gotta throw a bull-**** flag on this story.

Sorry, but while the story may be false, the LARS aren't.

R / John

> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[John Carrier]

ACM active is w/o a lock. The bomb would have guided active, much as a
sparrow, initially.

R / John

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>>>In the early days of December 1980 a single F-14 took off from Khatami
>>>Air Base in Esfehan. The pilot was patrolling and scanning the sky over
>>>the Persian Gulf about 60 to 70 miles west of Bushehr at an altitude of
>>>about 3 to 4 thousand ft. ,when ground radar advised the F-14 pilot of
>>>multiple boogies closing fast toward him. His aircraft was too far out
>>>to send in any back up help, so ground radar told the pilot you are on
>>>your own and good luck.
>>>The pilot turned around towards them knowing he had a disadvantage in
>>>numbers. By now the F-14 and two boogies were head to head about 20
>>>miles apart. The crew got a Phoenix Missile lock at about 10 miles,
>>>although it was a close range for phoenix. The pilot went ahead with
>>>fox1, he fired an AIM-54 phoenix. Following the smoke path of the
>>>phoenix he saw a ball of fire from the wing of MiG-21 that was
>>>breaking-up. Moments later a splash down from pieces of MiG-21 were
>>>visible in the ocean. In the mean while F-14 pilot observed the second
>>>MiG-21doing a hard G-turn away from the fire ball since the 2 MiGs were
>>>flying too close together. He was going back toward Iraq. The F-14 in
>>>pursuit could not get any radar lock on the second MiG-21 before he
>>>went super sonic.
>>>
>
> Given a 180 turn at 10NM while the Turkey is closing, I think the Mig
> could easily have been run down. And there's no problem with locking a
> target in the rear hemisphere, supersonic or not.
>
>>>Submitted by IRANIAN F-14 Pilot
>>
>> Maybe some Tom-drivers in this forum will comment, but I've got to
>> think that in a head-to-head pass with a system lock at ten miles
>> there is no possible way that the AIM-54 could function.
>
>
>> It's well inside Vmin for a AIM-7E-2 and wouldn't be a viable shot for
>> an AIM-9J, P, or M.
>
> I think your memory is cloudy. 10NM is nicely within the AIM-7 envelope.
> It's also in the heart of the AIM-54 ACM Active mode envelope IIRC.
>
>> And, inside ten miles, even a MiG-21 can be easily acquired visually.
>
> Head-on @ ten miles? Not with these eyes when they were 20/15 and on a
> good day. Of course, the T-38 (and to a very slightly lesser degree, the
> F-5) were more difficult still.
>
>>> Sorry, I've gotta throw a bull-**** flag on this story.
>
> Sorry, but while the story may be false, the LARS aren't.
>
> R / John
>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> www.thunderchief.org
>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

John Carrier wrote:

> <Ed Rasimus>
> > Maybe some Tom-drivers in this forum will comment, but I've got to
> > think that in a head-to-head pass with a system lock at ten miles
> > there is no possible way that the AIM-54 could function.
>
> > It's well inside Vmin for a AIM-7E-2 and wouldn't be a viable shot for
> > an AIM-9J, P, or M.
>
> I think your memory is cloudy. 10NM is nicely within the AIM-7 envelope.

Indeed. Lodge/Locher (Oyster 01) and Markle/Eaves (Oyster 02) got an in-range
light at 13nm and made their first launch at 8nm FQ (approx. 135 deg. TCA,
target angels 13, snap-up) on 10 May 1972, and Lodge fired again at 6nm when the
first AIM-7E-2 blew up at motor burn-out. Min-range for AIM-7E or maybe E-2 is
12,000 feet head-on (firer and target speeds and altitudes not stated, but I'm
guessing M0.9), according to one Air Force report. Here's some data from the
SAC for the earlier, less maneuverable, and shorter-ranged (due to a lower total
impulse motor and less-sensitive seeker) AIM-7C, the first SARH Sparrow version,
culled from a post by Pete Stickney a few years back:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The motor is the same Aerojet 1.8KS-7800 used on the Sparrow I and
Sparrow II. The motor performance is roughly that of the AIM-7D.
The autopilot has a G-limiter that holds it to 15Gs.

Launch limits are: Altitude 0 to 60,000', and max launch speed is Mach
1.3. The range diagrams are for a launch speed of Mach 0.9, and
target speeds of Mach 0.7 and Mach 0.9. (It's fascinating to see how
much the max range decreases with altitude. Max range vs. a Mach 0.9
target head on at
sea level is 'bout 19000', min range about 9500.
At 30,000', the correspondng numbers are 34,000' and about 9500'.
At 50,000', Max Range vs. a Mach 0.9 target is 'bout 37000', min range
14250'

Tail chase, vs. a Mach 0.9 target (Co-speed)
Sea Level: Max Range 5700', Min Range 2000'
30,000': Max Range 21000', min range 'bout 4200'
50,000': Max Range 25000', min range 8200'.
-----------------------------------------------

It's pretty clear that head-on Vmin is well below 10nm for an AIM-7E2


>
> It's also in the heart of the AIM-54 ACM Active mode envelope IIRC.

>
> > And, inside ten miles, even a MiG-21 can be easily acquired visually.
>
> Head-on @ ten miles? Not with these eyes when they were 20/15 and on a good
> day. Of course, the T-38 (and to a very slightly lesser degree, the F-5)
> were more difficult still.

Yeah, considering typical tally distance on MiGs in Vietnam was 1.5-2nm.
Practice with F-5s/T-38s or A-4s helped, but it sure didn't make head or tail-on
pickups at 10nm 'easy'. By all accounts 5nm would be unusual, with the average
perhaps 2-3nm.

Guy

[John]

Just a comment from the sideline . . . Guys . . what a great thread . .
.. this is the stuff i come here for. Thanks to all who posted.

Blue skies

John

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:31:46 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>>>By now the F-14 and two boogies were head to head about 20
>>>miles apart. The crew got a Phoenix Missile lock at about 10 miles,
>>>although it was a close range for phoenix. The pilot went ahead with
>>>fox1, he fired an AIM-54 phoenix. Following the smoke path of the
>>>phoenix he saw a ball of fire from the wing of MiG-21 that was
>>>breaking-up. Moments later a splash down from pieces of MiG-21 were
>>>visible in the ocean. In the mean while F-14 pilot observed the second
>>>MiG-21doing a hard G-turn away from the fire ball since the 2 MiGs were
>>>flying too close together. He was going back toward Iraq. The F-14 in
>>>pursuit could not get any radar lock on the second MiG-21 before he
>>>went super sonic.
>>>
>
>Given a 180 turn at 10NM while the Turkey is closing, I think the Mig could
>easily have been run down. And there's no problem with locking a target in
>the rear hemisphere, supersonic or not.

The kill-shot is claimed on a head-to-head situation. That would be in
the 1000-1100kt Vc region which means that the interval from Rmax to
Rmin would be pretty short.

I'm an old AF guy, so don't have clue one about the AIM-54 (beyond
knowing multiple engagement capabiility, launch-n-leave, and
exceptional range), but I don't know the sequence of firing, guidance,
arming, ranging, etc operations.
>
>>>Submitted by IRANIAN F-14 Pilot
>>
>> Maybe some Tom-drivers in this forum will comment, but I've got to
>> think that in a head-to-head pass with a system lock at ten miles
>> there is no possible way that the AIM-54 could function.
>
>
>> It's well inside Vmin for a AIM-7E-2 and wouldn't be a viable shot for
>> an AIM-9J, P, or M.
>
>I think your memory is cloudy. 10NM is nicely within the AIM-7 envelope.
>It's also in the heart of the AIM-54 ACM Active mode envelope IIRC.

10NM is just great for a low aspect shot, but head-on is a distinctly
different situation.
>
>> And, inside ten miles, even a MiG-21 can be easily acquired visually.
>
>Head-on @ ten miles? Not with these eyes when they were 20/15 and on a good
>day. Of course, the T-38 (and to a very slightly lesser degree, the F-5)
>were more difficult still.

We were doing a low level escorted attack on Red Rio range in the
Holloman complex in which I was leading a four-ship of AT-38 "bombers"
onto the tac range with a pair of F-15A's flying outrigger escort for
me. The defenders were a pair of F-5E Aggressors deployed from Nellis.

I visually acquired the pair of F-5s and called them out for the
offensive force at "5 miles"---GCI confirmed the visual, but corrected
my range to 13 miles.

With a radar contact for cueing on the visual search quadrant, visuals
at 10 miles on MiG-21 sized targets are not out of thequestion.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[John Carrier]

SNIP

>>Head-on @ ten miles? Not with these eyes when they were 20/15 and on a
>>good
>>day. Of course, the T-38 (and to a very slightly lesser degree, the F-5)
>>were more difficult still.
>
> We were doing a low level escorted attack on Red Rio range in the
> Holloman complex in which I was leading a four-ship of AT-38 "bombers"
> onto the tac range with a pair of F-15A's flying outrigger escort for
> me. The defenders were a pair of F-5E Aggressors deployed from Nellis.
>
> I visually acquired the pair of F-5s and called them out for the
> offensive force at "5 miles"---GCI confirmed the visual, but corrected
> my range to 13 miles.
>
> With a radar contact for cueing on the visual search quadrant, visuals
> at 10 miles on MiG-21 sized targets are not out of thequestion.

Optimum contrast, maybe a bit of target aspect? Possible. But having
watched a padlocked T-38 disappear into the background at a mile, not
likely.

R / John

[Amir]

Minimum engagement range is about 3.7 km (2 nm), in which case active
homing is used from the beginning.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:19:38 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>
>SNIP
>
>>>Head-on @ ten miles? Not with these eyes when they were 20/15 and on a
>>>good
>>>day. Of course, the T-38 (and to a very slightly lesser degree, the F-5)
>>>were more difficult still.
>>
>> We were doing a low level escorted attack on Red Rio range in the
>> Holloman complex in which I was leading a four-ship of AT-38 "bombers"
>> onto the tac range with a pair of F-15A's flying outrigger escort for
>> me. The defenders were a pair of F-5E Aggressors deployed from Nellis.
>>
>> I visually acquired the pair of F-5s and called them out for the
>> offensive force at "5 miles"---GCI confirmed the visual, but corrected
>> my range to 13 miles.
>>
>> With a radar contact for cueing on the visual search quadrant, visuals
>> at 10 miles on MiG-21 sized targets are not out of thequestion.
>
>Optimum contrast, maybe a bit of target aspect? Possible. But having
>watched a padlocked T-38 disappear into the background at a mile, not
>likely.

And, I'll confess to having exactly the same experience. Four years
doing Fighter Lead-In at Holloman gives a lot of opportunity to be
embarrassed.

Was a bit of 1-v-1 over the New Mexico desert and I was doing all
aspect engagements against a "lizard" paint job--dusty tan, brown
camo. I watched him come in at high angle from 10 o'clock and simply
disappear as I watched the airplane at a mile.

Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:31:46 -0500, "John Carrier" >
> wrote:

<snip>

> >> Maybe some Tom-drivers in this forum will comment, but I've got to
> >> think that in a head-to-head pass with a system lock at ten miles
> >> there is no possible way that the AIM-54 could function.
> >
> >
> >> It's well inside Vmin for a AIM-7E-2 and wouldn't be a viable shot for
> >> an AIM-9J, P, or M.
> >
> >I think your memory is cloudy. 10NM is nicely within the AIM-7 envelope.
> >It's also in the heart of the AIM-54 ACM Active mode envelope IIRC.
>
> 10NM is just great for a low aspect shot, but head-on is a distinctly
> different situation.

As pointed out in my other post, 10nm is closer to Rmax had-on for an AIM-7E-2 at
moderate altitudes and ca. M0.9, not Rmin, which is more like 2nm. I used to
have a videotape off CNN of the F-14/MiG-23 engagement over the Gulf of Sidra in
the mid-80s or so ("I can't get a ****ing tone!"), which I transcribed.
Presumably using the longer ranged AIM-7F or -7M (anyone know which?) instead of
what would have presumably been an AIM-7E-4*, Sparrow shots were taken head-on at
13 and 10nm, firer at Angels 5 snapping up, target at Angels 9, both firer and
target at about 450 kts; presumably the heart of the envelope or close to it.

*According to Friedman differing from the 7E-2 in protection from the AWG-9's
much greater 'spillover' radiation, compared to the F-4's radar.

Guy